Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

dunstonh

wantanswers wrote: »

Your argument is the FSA is liable but I suspect it is more likely the courts would judge Mr Farely is.

Are you speaking from experience?

The investors are the victim of a crime. The crime was commited by Farley.

The FSA monitors and controls regulated firms and has a responsibility there but its powers are less when it comes to dealing with non-regulated firms. In other cases where victims of non regulated companies have been caught out, the FSA has had no liability. So, what makes you think this time round they do?

For reference, no-one here is an expert on law. Its a discussion forum only.

FSA_Legal_Action

RayWolfe wrote: »

Classic!
People "invest" in unregulated financial activity. It goes belly up and it's someone else's fault.
Let's have a public enquiry, paid for by the rest of us.
Let's have our money back, paid for by the rest of us.
Take responsibility for your own action folks.

Well Ray Wolfe. Good morning to you.
How interesting to see the FSA's 'unofficial' opinion coming out through either their own employees monitoring forums to attack any dissenters, or alternatively just another loyal ignorant sheep.

Perhaps if you had more than a handful of brain cells your more intelligent side would look for the facts in a case before carte blanche attacking it assuming its a bunch of bleeting fools trying to 'blame someone else for their own actions'.

Allow me to enlighten you to a few points if you are capable of any degree of listening and learning ability:

Firstly i totally agree, if you invest in an unregulated activity you have only yourself to blame if it goes belly up. Absolutely right. UNLESS the investment you invested in didn't go belly up at all, and very differently the FSA in fact stuck their nose in and LOST THE MONEY THEMSELVES.

2. If someone invests in an unregulated activity then i agree the FSA should have no responsibilty towards those people, in which case they should keep their noses out and say 'whatever will be will be' for the idiots (or perhaps people brave enough to take a risk on unregulated investments at their own discretion). Where the problem lies is in the FSA saying they don't regulate the investment therefore there is no compensation for victims if anything goes wrong with the company - FINE - but keep your beak out and go and police the regulated investments instead saving the tax payers money with you wasting time on companies who don't put money in the Limited Company that is the Financial Services 'Authority'. Whatever happens to us is OUR concern and nobody else's. More importantly, if they had done so nobody, least of all me, would be blaming the FSA for inaction as we DID NOT EXPECT ANY. You can't have your cake and eat it, but it appears the FSA can. They can mess around with regulated companies, but they can also mess around in unregulated companies knowing that the investors therein took their decision to invest with full knowledge of the company being UNregulated - suggesting its NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

3. What if the FSA had acknowledged that the company concerned had applied for regulation and was "working with the FSA" on becoming fully compliant by their rules?

4. Of course above all, what if the FSA closes a company, freezes all its assets (except one), and leaves (in that one asset it didnt 'bother' to close down) a huge amount of client funds which are "lost" under the FSA's statutory control of the company? Well in that case Mr Wolfe, the company is not who we blame simply because the company was not responsible. If the FSA took legal control with statutory powers and froze all company assets (allegedly) then THEY carry the can for whatever happens within the company after that. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps you are the kind of person who drives a car, crashes into someone, and blames it on the rear seat passenger who was blind deaf and mute, and obviously sitting in the rear seat they had no controlling functions over the vehicle? Yeah, you probably would, so don't waste time answering, i will just make ignorant and arrogant assumptions that i know everything, sort of like you did in your short-sighted post.

For the benefit of anyone with any degree of intelligence or rational thinking ability, the www. FSA UK LEGAL ACTION .com website is open to view and will be exposing the many stinky facts about this case and the FSA's actions leading DIRECTLY to OUR FUNDS BEING LOST. The people involved, some 1700 people will be working for no pay simply to have their case heard by more balanced individuals than yourself Mr Wolfe, in particular by barristers. Forgive me if i prefer to take a barrister's word for it than yours, but i think we have a case, so do 1700 other people, so does a lawyer and so would you if you were more than three chromosomes genetically removed from a Highland Sheep.

If any intelligent person wishes to see evidence proving in no uncertain terms that the FSA were directly responsible for the loss of client funds, please come over and read our arguments as the case progresses.

Mr Wolfe, have a good day, hope the grass is greener in your regulated grazing. (watch out for the GM fertilizers, than can make you sterile).

Its a shame moronic assumption is not a regulated activity, if it was i would pay double on all my tax bills.

Reaper

wantanswers wrote: »

Your argument is the FSA is liable but I suspect it is more likely the courts would judge Mr Farely is.

Are you speaking from experience?

No, which is my point. You need to seek legal advice as to whether it is even an option. Sometimes solicitors will even allow a first meeting free where you can ask whether there is any point is pursuing it, though be sure to establish whether it is free beforehand!

Ignoring the FSA for a moment courts can impose freezing orders. If the subject breaches them then they can be fined, but the court can't be sued for not doing its job properly. My assumption (and this is only an assumption) is that a FSA freezing order is no different.

Here is a simple explanation (for sixth formers) of freezing orders. To quote a bit of it:

A defendant and any third parties who fail to comply with the order are in contempt of Court and liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. Third parties who knowingly assist in a breach of the order are guilty of contempt (for example if a bank pays money out of the defendant’s bank account). A freezing order does not, however, bind third parties outside the jurisdiction (for example a foreign branch of a bank with a presence in England).

The FSA has not knowingly breached the order so in my purely personal opinion they are not liable. But I'm not a lawyer. You should talk to someone who is.

FSA_Legal_Action

Reaper wrote: »

Mr Farely apears to have found a way round the freezing of assets and made one last reckless gamble with the remaining money left in a trading account, and ended up pretty much losing the lot. Your argument is the FSA is liable but I suspect it is more likely the courts would judge Mr Farely is. The only way to discover the answer is to seek legal advice rather than endlessly bicker on forums.

Dunston & Reaper - thank you both. Whilst i don't agree with you, you make your points with a degree of intelligent and level-headedness which was sadly lacking from the murmering baa baas from the other establishment whips above.

Just wanted to point out that in a way Reaper kind of summed this all up in his/her post as quoted above.

Mr Farley "appears" to have found a way round........ - well that is certainly possible. Is it likely? Perhaps yes. Is it PROVEN? No. Do we have a right to know what happened to our money? Yes i think so. A very simple phone call from the FSA could obtain details of the IP addresses from where any of those losing reckless trades were placed and we could be kindly informed of EVIDENCE explaining what happened to our funds. Speculation is not worth the paper it's not printed on

You say that 'Our argument is the FSA is liable but you think the courts will judge Mr Farley is' - this is the critical mistake which people have made to date, and it has been fueled and encouraged by the FSA and their little worker bees. This is not a choice of Pepsi or Coke. Both are bad for you
We are not disputed or even discussing Mr Farley's role or wrongdoings. They will be dealt with on their own by any Police investigations under way. Does that negate the FSA for wrongdoing on other counts? NO, but they would love us all to think so and for a long time they had us all convinced!
It is more than possible that Mr Farley has done things wrong, AND so have the FSA. Should one party be held immune to criticism or prosecution just because they can throw mud at the other side?

Reaper wrote: »

The only way to discover the answer is to seek legal advice rather than endlessly bicker on forums.

You are exactly right. Once again however, is both not an option?

Having said that, it does detract from the real and correct direction for the group so i intend to leave now having said my piece, not caring a jot what anyone thinks as, just as you said yourself, the only way to know for real is to take all our evidence to barristers and have their opinions. This is well under way.

Here's to truth and justice, whatever that may bring for us but hopefully at the very least some facts so that hard working honest people can know what happened to their hard earned savings. Surely thats not too much to ask? We intend to find out and any wrongdoing by ANY party will be pursued and is being pursued without being put off by ANYONE other than our own independent legal professionals who have our interests truly at heart.

dunstonh

Where the problem lies is in the FSA saying they don't regulate the investment therefore there is no compensation for victims if anything goes wrong with the company - FINE - but keep your beak out and go and police the regulated investments instead saving the tax payers money with you wasting time on companies who don't put money in the Limited Company that is the Financial Services 'Authority'.

The FSA is funded by the regulated companies. Not the taxpayer.

If it becomes aware of illegal activity by an unregulated company then it will make an attempt to shut it down and that is within its remit. That is not the same issue over consumer protection from a monetary point of view. If the FSA took no action then in effect they would be making regulation of firms voluntary.

You can't have your cake and eat it, but it appears the FSA can.

I sympathise with that comment as its one that often applies to the FSA.

. What if the FSA had acknowledged that the company concerned had applied for regulation and was "working with the FSA" on becoming fully compliant by their rules?

You are either authorised or you are not. Applying is not the same thing. Being regulated and being compliant are also two different things.

4. Of course above all, what if the FSA closes a company, freezes all its assets (except one), and leaves (in that one asset it didnt 'bother' to close down) a huge amount of client funds which are "lost" under the FSA's statutory control of the company? Well in that case Mr Wolfe, the company is not who we blame simply because the company was not responsible. If the FSA took legal control with statutory powers and froze all company assets (allegedly) then THEY carry the can for whatever happens within the company after that.

There is a legal process to freezing assets. The FSA can put the application in but the decision is not theirs. It goes to the High Court and the Judge decides. Did the ruling include those assets? Did the FSA know of those Assets?

No-one here or any other website can say if the FSA acted correctly. Barristers may have an opinion but then one side always wins and the other loses but there are barristers on both sides. The barristers on your side may feel you have a case but if they are employed by those that have lost money, they are not going to publically state where they may not have a case.

If any intelligent person wishes to see evidence proving in no uncertain terms that the FSA were directly responsible for the loss of client funds, please come over and read our arguments as the case progresses.

The FSA were not responsible. Did the FSA put these people's money in an unregulated scheme? no. The FSA just applied to the court to wind up a company that was acting illegally.

wantanswers

FSA Legal Action & Dunstonh

Thanks to both of you for your comments.
Enough arguments and discussion has taken place on forums it's now time for me to decide on what route to take. The choices for me appear quite clear:

Justice for the wrongdoings of CFL.
Justice for the complacency of the FSA.

I personally will be considering both.

Thanks again for your comments.

ritchieboy

FSA Legal Action, firstly thanks for letting Ray Wolfe in on a few facts that the gentlemen was so clearly short of. I couldn't think of anything but expletives to reply to him the moment I read his stupid comments.

I am so glad I started this thread as I have learnt more in these couple of pages in the last few days than I have in the last year!

I have to run now but will be checking in later with the web site you mentioned to gain some more information. I would gladly help out with anything that needs doing with regards CF and any case being made.

wantanswers

Reaper Thanks for your input also as Legal Action said it's underway.

many thanks all.

RayWolfe

FSA_Legal_Action wrote: »

Well Ray Wolfe. Good morning to you.
How interesting to see the FSA's 'unofficial' opinion coming out through either their own employees monitoring forums to attack any dissentersMr Wolfe, have a good day, hope the grass is greener in your regulated grazing. (watch out for the GM fertilizers, than can make you sterile).
<SNIP>

Its a shame moronic assumption is not a regulated activity, if it was i would pay double on all my tax bills.

Good grief!
Let me repeat:
Classic!
People "invest" in unregulated financial activity. It goes belly up and it's someone else's fault.
Let's have a public enquiry, paid for by the rest of us.
Let's have our money back, paid for by the rest of us.
Take responsibility for your own action folks.

Rollinghome

FSA_Legal_Action wrote: »

Well Ray Wolfe... Perhaps if you had more than a handful of brain cells...

I can't help noticing that regardless of the relative number of brain cells present you are the one who's been parted from your money while Ray Wolfe seems smart enough to have steered clear of such scams.

Good luck with the problem but I suspect that kicking the dog or popping up on forums to be abusive is unlikely to be helpful.